Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. New Yorkgreen2 sentences2026See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 232 (1971) A-3811-23 29 ("[A]lthough any statement they obtain[ed] in violation of Miranda cannot be used on the State's direct case, it may be introduced if the defendant has the temerity to testify in his own defense"); State v. Harris, 181 N.J. at 440 ("Statements taken in violation of Miranda may be used for impeachment when they were given freely and voluntarily" pursuant to the due process clause); Burris, 145 N.J. at 525 ("The impeachment exception is strictly limited to situations in which the suppressed statement is trustworthy and reliable in tha 2018New Jersey has long "adopted and employed the impeachment exception [to the exclusionary rule] set forth in Harris." State v. Burris, 145 N.J. 509, 524 (1996) (citing Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)) (other citations omitted). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Burrisgreen2 sentences2026See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 232 (1971) A-3811-23 29 ("[A]lthough any statement they obtain[ed] in violation of Miranda cannot be used on the State's direct case, it may be introduced if the defendant has the temerity to testify in his own defense"); State v. Harris, 181 N.J. at 440 ("Statements taken in violation of Miranda may be used for impeachment when they were given freely and voluntarily" pursuant to the due process clause); Burris, 145 N.J. at 525 ("The impeachment exception is strictly limited to situations in which the suppressed statement is trustworthy and reliable in tha 2018New Jersey has long "adopted and employed the impeachment exception [to the exclusionary rule] set forth in Harris." State v. Burris, 145 N.J. 509, 524 (1996) (citing Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222 (1971)) (other citations omitted). | 2 | 7 |
Mincey v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2018"The impeachment exception is strictly limited to situations in which the suppressed statement is trustworthy and reliable in that it was given freely and voluntarily without compelling influences." Id. at 525 (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 397-98 (1978)). 2018"The impeachment exception is strictly limited to situations in which the suppressed statement is trustworthy and reliable in that it was given freely and voluntarily without compelling influences." Id. at 525 (citing Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 397-98 (1978)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences1996However, as the Court also acknowledges, critics of the impeachment exception argue that “ ‘[i]f the statements are irreconcilable it may indicate that the prior statement was false rather than the latter, a realistic possibility where the prior statement was made under the subtly coercive circumstances of the station house interrogation.’ ” Ante at 531, 679 A.2d at 132 (quoting State v. Miller, 67 N.J. 229, 241 , 337 A.2d 36 (1975)). 1996However, as the Court also acknowledges, critics of the impeachment exception argue that “ ‘[i]f the statements are irreconcilable it may indicate that the prior statement was false rather than the latter, a realistic possibility where the prior statement was made under the subtly coercive circumstances of the station house interrogation.’ ” Ante at 531, 679 A.2d at 132 (quoting State v. Miller, 67 N.J. 229, 241 , 337 A.2d 36 (1975)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2026See Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 232 (1971) A-3811-23 29 ("[A]lthough any statement they obtain[ed] in violation of Miranda cannot be used on the State's direct case, it may be introduced if the defendant has the temerity to testify in his own defense"); State v. Harris, 181 N.J. at 440 ("Statements taken in violation of Miranda may be used for impeachment when they were given freely and voluntarily" pursuant to the due process clause); Burris, 145 N.J. at 525 ("The impeachment exception is strictly limited to situations in which the suppressed statement is trustworthy and reliable in tha | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reinaldo Fuentes (070729)green1 sentence2018State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
Reck v. Pategreen2 sentences2000Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963); Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 435 , 81 S.Ct. 1541, 1543 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 948, 950 (1961); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 , 56 S.Ct. 461 , 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). [ Id. at 525-26 , 679 A. 2d 121 .] Although our Supreme Court acknowledged that it could not "ignore police misconduct in obtaining evidence[,]" it also observed that "the concern about police misconduct that may follow from an impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule is highly generalized and speculative." Id. at 529 , 679 A. 2d 121 . 2000Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963); Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 435 , 81 S.Ct. 1541, 1543 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 948, 950 (1961); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 , 56 S.Ct. 461 , 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). [ Id. at 525-26 , 679 A. 2d 121 .] Although our Supreme Court acknowledged that it could not "ignore police misconduct in obtaining evidence[,]" it also observed that "the concern about police misconduct that may follow from an impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule is highly generalized and speculative." Id. at 529 , 679 A. 2d 121 . | 1 | 1 |
| James v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 1 |
Oregon v. Hassgreen2 sentences1996The Supreme Court significantly extended the impeachment exception in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 723 , 95 S.Ct. 1215, 1223 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570, 578 (1975). 1996The Supreme Court significantly extended the impeachment exception in Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 723 , 95 S.Ct. 1215, 1223 , 43 L.Ed.2d 570, 578 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Havensgreen2 sentences1996See Oregon v. Elstad, supra, 470 U.S. at 307 , 105 S.Ct. at 1292 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 231 ; Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at 663 , 104 S.Ct. at 2635 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 562 ; Mincey, supra, 437 U.S. at 397 , 98 S.Ct. at 2416 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 303 ; Hass, supra, 420 U.S. at 714 , 95 S.Ct. at 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d at 570 ; Harris, supra, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ; see also United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980) (permitting fruits of unlawful search and seizure to be used in impeachment of a defendant on cross-examination). 1996See Oregon v. Elstad, supra, 470 U.S. at 307 , 105 S.Ct. at 1292 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 231 ; Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at 663 , 104 S.Ct. at 2635 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 562 ; Mincey, supra, 437 U.S. at 397 , 98 S.Ct. at 2416 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 303 ; Hass, supra, 420 U.S. at 714 , 95 S.Ct. at 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d at 570 ; Harris, supra, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ; see also United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980) (permitting fruits of unlawful search and seizure to be used in impeachment of a defendant on cross-examination). | 1 | 1 |
Oregon v. Elstadgreen2 sentences1996See Oregon v. Elstad, supra, 470 U.S. at 307 , 105 S.Ct. at 1292 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 231 ; Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at 663 , 104 S.Ct. at 2635 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 562 ; Mincey, supra, 437 U.S. at 397 , 98 S.Ct. at 2416 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 303 ; Hass, supra, 420 U.S. at 714 , 95 S.Ct. at 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d at 570 ; Harris, supra, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ; see also United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980) (permitting fruits of unlawful search and seizure to be used in impeachment of a defendant on cross-examination). 1996See Oregon v. Elstad, supra, 470 U.S. at 307 , 105 S.Ct. at 1292 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 231 ; Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at 663 , 104 S.Ct. at 2635 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 562 ; Mincey, supra, 437 U.S. at 397 , 98 S.Ct. at 2416 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 303 ; Hass, supra, 420 U.S. at 714 , 95 S.Ct. at 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d at 570 ; Harris, supra, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ; see also United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980) (permitting fruits of unlawful search and seizure to be used in impeachment of a defendant on cross-examination). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Santiagogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Irving
green
2 sentences2006Burris, supra, 145 N.J. at 524 , 679 A. 2d 121 (citing State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427 , 555 A. 2d 575 (1989); State v. Miller, 67 N.J. 229 , 337 A. 2d 36 (1975); State v. Davis, 67 N.J. 222 , 337 A. 2d 33 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943 , 96 S.Ct. 1684 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 187 (1976)). 2006Burris, supra, 145 N.J. at 524 , 679 A. 2d 121 (citing State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427 , 555 A. 2d 575 (1989); State v. Miller, 67 N.J. 229 , 337 A. 2d 36 (1975); State v. Davis, 67 N.J. 222 , 337 A. 2d 33 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943 , 96 S.Ct. 1684 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 187 (1976)). | 2 | 1996–2006 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences2006Burris, supra, 145 N.J. at 524 , 679 A. 2d 121 (citing State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427 , 555 A. 2d 575 (1989); State v. Miller, 67 N.J. 229 , 337 A. 2d 36 (1975); State v. Davis, 67 N.J. 222 , 337 A. 2d 33 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943 , 96 S.Ct. 1684 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 187 (1976)). 2006Burris, supra, 145 N.J. at 524 , 679 A. 2d 121 (citing State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427 , 555 A. 2d 575 (1989); State v. Miller, 67 N.J. 229 , 337 A. 2d 36 (1975); State v. Davis, 67 N.J. 222 , 337 A. 2d 33 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943 , 96 S.Ct. 1684 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 187 (1976)). | 2 | 1996–2006 |
Schaefer v. First National Bank of Lincolnwood
green
1 sentence2006Burris, supra, 145 N.J. at 524 , 679 A. 2d 121 (citing State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427 , 555 A. 2d 575 (1989); State v. Miller, 67 N.J. 229 , 337 A. 2d 36 (1975); State v. Davis, 67 N.J. 222 , 337 A. 2d 33 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943 , 96 S.Ct. 1684 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 187 (1976)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Aldens, Inc. v. Kane
green
2 sentences2006Burris, supra, 145 N.J. at 524 , 679 A. 2d 121 (citing State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427 , 555 A. 2d 575 (1989); State v. Miller, 67 N.J. 229 , 337 A. 2d 36 (1975); State v. Davis, 67 N.J. 222 , 337 A. 2d 33 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943 , 96 S.Ct. 1684 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 187 (1976)). 2006Burris, supra, 145 N.J. at 524 , 679 A. 2d 121 (citing State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427 , 555 A. 2d 575 (1989); State v. Miller, 67 N.J. 229 , 337 A. 2d 36 (1975); State v. Davis, 67 N.J. 222 , 337 A. 2d 33 (1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943 , 96 S.Ct. 1684 , 48 L.Ed. 2d 187 (1976)). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Brown v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2000Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963); Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 435 , 81 S.Ct. 1541, 1543 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 948, 950 (1961); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 , 56 S.Ct. 461 , 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). [ Id. at 525-26 , 679 A. 2d 121 .] Although our Supreme Court acknowledged that it could not "ignore police misconduct in obtaining evidence[,]" it also observed that "the concern about police misconduct that may follow from an impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule is highly generalized and speculative." Id. at 529 , 679 A. 2d 121 . 2000Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963); Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 435 , 81 S.Ct. 1541, 1543 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 948, 950 (1961); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 , 56 S.Ct. 461 , 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). [ Id. at 525-26 , 679 A. 2d 121 .] Although our Supreme Court acknowledged that it could not "ignore police misconduct in obtaining evidence[,]" it also observed that "the concern about police misconduct that may follow from an impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule is highly generalized and speculative." Id. at 529 , 679 A. 2d 121 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Townsend v. Sain
red
2 sentences2000Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963); Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 435 , 81 S.Ct. 1541, 1543 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 948, 950 (1961); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 , 56 S.Ct. 461 , 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). [ Id. at 525-26 , 679 A. 2d 121 .] Although our Supreme Court acknowledged that it could not "ignore police misconduct in obtaining evidence[,]" it also observed that "the concern about police misconduct that may follow from an impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule is highly generalized and speculative." Id. at 529 , 679 A. 2d 121 . 2000Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 , 83 S.Ct. 745 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 770 (1963); Reck v. Pate, 367 U.S. 433, 435 , 81 S.Ct. 1541, 1543 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 948, 950 (1961); Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 , 56 S.Ct. 461 , 80 L.Ed. 682 (1936). [ Id. at 525-26 , 679 A. 2d 121 .] Although our Supreme Court acknowledged that it could not "ignore police misconduct in obtaining evidence[,]" it also observed that "the concern about police misconduct that may follow from an impeachment exception to the exclusionary rule is highly generalized and speculative." Id. at 529 , 679 A. 2d 121 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
New York v. Quarles
green
2 sentences1996See Oregon v. Elstad, supra, 470 U.S. at 307 , 105 S.Ct. at 1292 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 231 ; Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at 663 , 104 S.Ct. at 2635 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 562 ; Mincey, supra, 437 U.S. at 397 , 98 S.Ct. at 2416 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 303 ; Hass, supra, 420 U.S. at 714 , 95 S.Ct. at 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d at 570 ; Harris, supra, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ; see also United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980) (permitting fruits of unlawful search and seizure to be used in impeachment of a defendant on cross-examination). 1996See Oregon v. Elstad, supra, 470 U.S. at 307 , 105 S.Ct. at 1292 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 231 ; Quarles, supra, 467 U.S. at 663 , 104 S.Ct. at 2635 , 81 L.Ed.2d at 562 ; Mincey, supra, 437 U.S. at 397 , 98 S.Ct. at 2416 , 57 L.Ed.2d at 303 ; Hass, supra, 420 U.S. at 714 , 95 S.Ct. at 1215 , 43 L.Ed.2d at 570 ; Harris, supra, 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643 , 28 L.Ed.2d 1 ; see also United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620 , 100 S.Ct. 1912 , 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980) (permitting fruits of unlawful search and seizure to be used in impeachment of a defendant on cross-examination). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Collins v. Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services
green
2 sentences1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse 1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill. 2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E. 2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker ), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed. 2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So. 2d 13 (Ala. 1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant's invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A. 2d 1049 (D.C. 1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary *525 statement despite fa | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Libed v. United States
green
2 sentences1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse 1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill. 2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E. 2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker ), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed. 2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So. 2d 13 (Ala. 1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant's invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A. 2d 1049 (D.C. 1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary *525 statement despite fa | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Slobodian
green
2 sentences1996State v. Slobodian, 120 N.J.Super. 68 , 293 A.2d 399 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 62 N.J. 77 , 299 A.2d 75 (1972). 1996State v. Slobodian, 120 N.J.Super. 68 , 293 A.2d 399 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 62 N.J. 77 , 299 A.2d 75 (1972). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Hartley green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Winsett v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse 1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill. 2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E. 2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker ), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed. 2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So. 2d 13 (Ala. 1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant's invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A. 2d 1049 (D.C. 1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary *525 statement despite fa | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Ex Parte Comer green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Sutton v. Bloom green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Arizona v. Routhier
green
1 sentence1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Kimble v. United States
green
1 sentence1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Routhier
green
2 sentences1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse 1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Wade
green
2 sentences1996Cf. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L. 1996Cf. United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Martinez v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| People v. Winsett green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Slobodian green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Miller, 76 N.J. 392 , 388 A. 2d 218 (1978) ( Miller II ), the Court considered the requirement for voluntariness that underlies the privilege against self-incrimination. 1996In State v. Miller, 76 N.J. 392 , 388 A. 2d 218 (1978) ( Miller II ), the Court considered the requirement for voluntariness that underlies the privilege against self-incrimination. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| State v. Swallow green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
McDonald v. Missouri
green
1 sentence1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Manns v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Martinez v. United States
green
2 sentences1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse 1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill. 2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E. 2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker ), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed. 2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So. 2d 13 (Ala. 1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant's invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A. 2d 1049 (D.C. 1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary *525 statement despite fa | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Jones v. Office of Personnel Management
green
2 sentences1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse 1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill. 2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E. 2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker ), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed. 2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So. 2d 13 (Ala. 1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant's invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A. 2d 1049 (D.C. 1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary *525 statement despite fa | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Garrett v. State
green
2 sentences1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill.2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E.2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed.2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So.2d 13 (Ala.1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant’s invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A.2d 1049 (D.C.1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to obse 1996E.g., People v. Winsett, 153 Ill. 2d 335 , 180 Ill.Dec. 109 , 606 N.E. 2d 1186 (1992) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure to observe invoked Fifth Amendment right to counsel; basing decision on Hass and Tucker ), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 831 , 114 S.Ct. 102 , 126 L.Ed. 2d 68 (1993); Ex parte Comer, 591 So. 2d 13 (Ala. 1991) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary statement despite failure of police to observe the defendant's invoked right to silence); Martinez v. United States, 566 A. 2d 1049 (D.C. 1989) (allowing impeachment use of voluntary *525 statement despite fa | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.